Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

CUTTING THE DRUG-TERROR CONNECTION
by John P. Walters, Director of the White House National Drug Control Policy

Americans are deep into an unwelcome education about the extent and complexity of worldwide terror networks.  Yet relatively few Americans grasp the degree to which illegal activities including drug trafficking finance those networks.  Simply put, when you buy illegal drugs, you are literally giving money to some of the most ruthlessly violent people in the world.

Twelve of the 28 groups classified by the U.S. government as "terrorist" are actively engaged in drug trafficking.  In Afghanistan, until they abruptly repressed opium commerce last year, the Taliban regime had been earning approximately $50 million per year from the drug trade.  In Colombia, the search for a lasting peace has been hampered by rebel groups like the FARC, which makes over $300 million per year from drugs (Colombia's other major rebel and paramilitary groups are also involved). The record of Colombia's narco-terrorists has been particularly grisly: thousands of innocent lives taken in building, car, and plane bombings. Elsewhere, Lebanon's Beka'a Valley has for years been known as an equally fertile source for both opium poppies and terrorism.

Nor need one be officially classified as a "terrorist" to wield terror.  Drug gangs in Mexico engage in the brutal slaughter of civilians.  Drug syndicates in Southeast Asia use kidnapping, torture, and killing as tools of the trade.

These criminal networks are one of the most powerful and pervasive threats to democratic institutions of our day. They represent a direct threat both to our security and to the rule of law in the countries in which they operate. The channels carved out by drug trafficking secret archipelagoes of safe houses, covert border-crossing points, smuggling ships, procurers of fake passports, and money launderers serve equally well as arteries for violence and terror. Drug networks serve as ready-made conduits for the smuggling of weapons, hostages, or biological or nuclear materials.

Drugs may not always be the main purpose of these criminal enterprises, but in many cases drugs are their economic oxygen.  Often, smuggling takes on a logic of its own, as an insurgent group turns to drug trafficking to raise money for the cause, only to have the lure and imperatives of the drug trade replace whatever political ideals they were originally fighting for.

And we Americans are paying for it. Americans spend over $60 billion a year to purchase illegal drugs, more than any other country. The good news is that there is something we can do about it. By cutting drug use in America, we can squeeze the margins out of the international drug trade and cut the windfall profits that now go to narco-terrorists.  If you use illicit drugs, stop now.  If you need help, get it; there are more and better resources available for drug treatment than ever before, and this administration is committed to expanding them, with $1.6 billion in new funding over the next five years.

Not everybody agrees with this approach.  Self-styled drug policy "reformers" are busy making the case that if drugs finance terror, then drugs should be legalized (a case they have been pressing since the 1970s).  Their argument assumes that drug use is fundamentally an individual decision with no consequences to anybody else. This has always been a lie, and never more so than now. Drug use has always hurt families and communities, and no amount of denial can change that.  Now we must face the truth that drug use is destructive on a much broader scale.

It would be glib to suggest that every dollar from every drug sale winds up in the hands of terrorists like Osama bin Laden. But it is beyond dispute that around the world, killers, thugs, and terrorists depend upon American drug purchasers to finance their ghastly deeds. As our involuntary education on this topic continues, perhaps it is time to ask a simple question: Why would any American choose to hand money over to people who are actively seeking to harm us?

John P. Walters was sworn in as Director of the White House National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) on December 7, 2001.  As the nation’s “Drug Czar,” Mr. Walters coordinates all aspects of federal drug programs and spending.  From 1985 – 1988, serving as Assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, he led the development of anti-drug programs.  Mr. Walters was ONDCP Deputy Director for Supply Reduction from 1991 to 1993, helping guide the development and implementation of anti-drug programs in all areas.  Mr. Walters also served as president of the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of over 600 foundations and individual donors.  He has taught political science at Michigan State University’s James Madison College and at Boston College.  John P. Walters holds a B.A. from Michigan State University and an M.A. from the University of Toronto.

DRUG LEGALIZERS HAD A 100% TRACK RECORD...Then They Came to New Mexico!
by Rep. Ron Godbey, New Mexico State Representative

Those who have been at the forefront of combating illicit drug legalization know that victories are often small and sporadic.  Drug legalizers have had victories in several states through referendums and petitions and a legislative victory in Hawaii.  When the legalizers brought their cause to New Mexico, they had a state ripe for picking — or so they thought.

In the end, drug legalization promoters suffered a decisive defeat in New Mexico.  Their defeat was due to hard work by a few dedicated soldiers who recognized that throughout history, whenever and wherever drugs have been easily and readily available, drug consumption, addiction, and crime have always increased — always!

Why New Mexico?  It’s an interesting study.  In 1994, Gary Johnson, a wealthy Republican with a campaign theme of “People Before Politics,” won the governorship.  His first term was rather lackluster, although dotted with a few disquieting libertarian leanings that forebode of things to come.  The Gary Johnson Administration’s main claim to fame and re-election success in 1998 was “I didn’t raise taxes.”

Gov. Johnson began his second term on January 1, 1999.  Six months later, he dropped the drug legalization bombshell.  He declared that marijuana, heroin, and cocaine should be legalized, controlled, and taxed.

Johnson immediately gained national media exposure.  To make matters worse, State Republican Party officials (also with libertarian leanings) took up the drumbeat for legalization.  The Lindesmith Center and NORML, sensing a golden opportunity, rolled into New Mexico with hundreds of thousands of dollars.  They opened an office in Albuquerque and another in Santa Fe.  They hired lobbyists, one of whom was a state Republican National Committeeman and the other a former Democratic governor.  Drug proponents now had the governor and state Republican Party officials saying that if we just legalized drugs, we would solve prison overcrowding, crime rates would tumble, and we would all live happily ever after — like they do in Amsterdam!

Justifiably, many anti-drug groups wrote off New Mexico as lost and another victory for the legalizers. Some of us believed differently.  But we were totally without resources, organization, or even an understanding of the breadth and depth of the legalization movement.  The more I researched the drug legalization movement, the more astounded and alarmed I became.  I realized just how well financed and organized drug proponents were.  Drug Watch International played an important role in my education.

During our 2001 legislative session, drug proponents introduced a number of bills.  They included redefining civil assets forfeiture; allowing hemp cultivation; allowing “medical” marijuana; decriminalizing possession of “small” amounts of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana; and amending habitual offender statutes to disallow drug possession crimes in enhancing penalties, and a “free pass” for first and second time heroin and cocaine possession offenses.

Space does not allow detailed explanation of the legislative process.  Suffice it to say that my strategy was to “hide the pea.”  Try to kill offensive bills in committee.  If that didn’t work, amend the bills so that they were ineffective.  But, at the same time, do not let drug proponents know what the next tactic would be.  That is, in committee argue the detrimental effects of drugs.  If a bill made it out of committee for a vote by the entire house or senate, argue that legalization is contrary to federal law, explaining that no matter what we did in New Mexico, federal law still controlled.

The strategy worked.  None of the offensive bills made it through both chambers, and with the closing of the session in mid-March 2001, the drug bills died.

The following legislative session (mid-January through mid-February 2002) was Gov. Johnson’s last.  Under term-limits, he cannot seek reelection.  Drug legalizers knew the 2002 session would be the last opportunity to get their agenda passed in New Mexico.

As the 2002 legislative session neared, drug proponents intensified their efforts — and spending.  More pro drug lobbyists were hired.  Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on media ads.  The legalizers flew in so-called “experts” to lobby individual legislators.

When the 2002 session opened, the same array of bills were introduced as had been introduced the previous year.  But this time we were better organized and financed.  We were ready.  We had a number of pro-family organizations working with us, along with religious groups, district attorneys, and law enforcement organizations.  We networked with drug prevention organizations to provide us with accurate, up-to-date information.  And, we had common sense on our side.

The drug legalization defeat in 2002 was even greater than it had been a year earlier.  Legalizers were unable to get any of their bills even out of committee.  We don’t believe the legalizers will come back to New Mexico. Current gubernatorial candidates have voiced strong anti-drug sentiments. 

Warning!  If the drug legalizers haven’t done so already, they’ll soon be in your state.  Get organized to oppose them, now!

Rep. Ron Godbey is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel.  He was first elected to the New Mexico House of Representatives in 1999.  Godbey has a law degree from Southern Methodist University.  He and his wife Martha have two children, Gary and Julie, and three grandchildren.  The Godbeys moved to New Mexico upon retiring from the Air Force in 1992.

DRUGS FINANCE TERRORISM
by John J. Coleman, President of the Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents

The international drug trade is the largest people-to-people foreign aid program in the history of the world. Each year, billions of dollars move from the street corners of America to places like Colombia, Burma, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, and, yes, Afghanistan. Unfortunately, this "aid" does not lead to better schools, hospitals, roads, or other public infrastructure but instead goes into the pockets of the foreign drug lords, many of whom support, willingly or through extortion, radical political groups.

Legalizing drugs in America would not reduce or eliminate the production of drugs in these far-away lands. Indeed, U.S. street prices would likely drop, leading to increased demand and use, which in turn would expand sales and more than make up for the initial loss of profits from the price drop. Some violence and associated crime might ease a bit, but even this, it seems, would be offset by a likely increase in violent crimes that are unrelated to the marketing of drugs but associated nonetheless with their use. For example, upwards of 75 percent of child, spouse, and elder abuse cases reflect drug and/or alcohol use by the offender(s) as a contributing factor. Realized savings in the cost of public safety after drug legalization would be needed to provide medical services to treat the increased numbers of drug addicts and their innocent victims.

If prohibition increases the street prices for drugs by 25 to 50 percent (a modest estimate), consider this as a form of excise tax for the consumer. Now, think of your favorite imported non-contraband product, and ask yourself if sales would increase or decrease if an excise tax of 25 percent or more were to be imposed. Free trade, whether in psychoactive substances or cars and TVs, builds world markets, increases supplies of commodities, and enables more consumers to have access.

A free-trade proposal for drugs would likely lead to more, not less, drug production, distribution, and consumer use — as well as increased financial support for international crime and terrorism.

As for the notion that a drug user should not be thought of as contributing to global terrorism, this reminds me of the pornographer who would like to be thought of as an artist rather than someone who degrades or devalues people. In the final analysis, we are responsible for our own behavior and how it influences and affects the community around us.

 
DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS
Prescription Drug Abuse, a Growing Epidemic
by  Hannah Tooley

On March 26, 2002, Dr. Asuncion Luyao was arrested in Florida and charged with prescription drug trafficking.  The Treasure Coast Medical Examiner reported that Dr. Luyao's "inappropriate prescriptions" contributed to the overdose deaths of several of her patients; and investigators found that she often prescribed powerful narcotics "without medical justification."   A curious thing happened in the weeks that followed Dr. Luyao's arrest.  Sixteen hundred people in South Florida descended on the state's welfare agencies seeking prescriptions for mind-altering drugs, because their prescriptions had "ended due to circumstances beyond their control.

Another Florida doctor, James Graves, was found guilty of manslaughter in the OxyContin overdose deaths of four of his patients.  Dr. Graves ran a pain management clinic visited by 1000 patients annually.

Thousands of people die each year from prescription drug overdose.  OxyContin, a time-release opioid, is the most high profile when it comes to prescription abuse, but there are others that are equally deadly, including codeine, Prozac, amphetamines, Ritalin, Viagra, and Ketamine, a veterinary tranquilizer.

In some cases, doctors and pharmacists deliberately break the law, but often honest professionals are fooled into writing prescriptions.  A man bent on mixing Viagra with Ecstasy, which is the newest rave craze, has only to claim sexual dysfunction to get a long-term supply of Viagra.  In the case of Ketamine, one Internet chat contributor asked, "What do we have to tell veterinarians as to our pet's symptoms to get them to prescribe Ketamine?  What's the recommended dosage for us humans?"  In other words, “After I've duped my vet into giving me Ketamine for Fluffy, how much do I take?”

Alert doctors and pharmacists sometimes spot abusers and call the police or steer them to help.  But many addicts manage to slip under the radar and maintain their habits by changing doctors or by pharmacy hopping.  How can society get a handle on this problem?  Florida, Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are all in the process of setting up prescription tracking programs that should red-flag hoarding and over-prescribing.  If these programs work, they will provide models for the rest of the country.

We live in an age of miracle drugs capable of extending life for decades in some cases. But many of our wonder drugs are potentially deadly and, as such, deserve our respect.   These drugs were not created for recreation, and amateurs using them to achieve an ephemeral out-of-body experience can find themselves permanently out of their bodies.  

FREE TRADE AT THE BRITISH COLUMBIA BORDER
by Detective Sergeant Dave Mann, Victoria, B.C. Police Department
Delegate, Drug Watch International

Hello, America. Have we got a deal for you!

Fresh BC Bud is trading fast and heading south through a very difficult border to patrol. Traveling by land, sea, and air, couriers take the risks, some with the plans and strategies of military operations. The cargo is the now World-famous British Columbia high-grade marijuana, 95 percent of which has been reported to be shipped to the United States. The words “ BC BUD” are known as far south and east as Florida. The name itself is misleading, as it describes a number of potent varieties, not just one type, of marijuana grown in British Columbia.

So, why is our marijuana so different?  It wasn’t until the 1980s. Then a switch from outdoor production to indoor cultivation became the primary source of marijuana. The short outdoor growing season still remains a secondary source; however, experimentation with horticultural science led the way to a new variety of marijuana, genetically altered to provide high potency, yield, taste, and flavor among other things.

The growers are so renowned for their skills that a movement is attempting to have them grow the Canadian Federal Government’s marijuana for alleged “medicinal” purposes after the failed crop of mixed and poor potency marijuana was harvested recently.

So, who controls this booming illicit industry? Organized crime gangs immediately recognized the profits, especially balanced with little or no penalties, and established a strong foothold. A large number of growing operations are conducted through proxies or hired individuals, distancing the crime groups from the actual offense.  In some cases, marijuana is being traded pound for pound for cocaine, and it is also a trade commodity for heroin, firearms, and other illegal goods.

How lucrative is this trade? Well, it has been documented that a pound of this high-potency marijuana will sell for between $2,500.00 and $3,500.00.  Depending on the yield of this new genetically altered plant, usually averaging three ounces per plant conservatively, that is approximately only six plants!  These indoor marijuana clones are designed to be squat because of space in residential units.  Most growing operations in rented residential houses average between 50 and 300 plants, and they can produce a crop every 60 to 90 days.  You do the math!

The money in this illicit industry is not without its violence, as crime groups prey upon others for their valuable crops in homestyle invasions. This has prompted some growers to take steps to protect themselves and their crops through weapons, firearms, and traps.

A document prepared for the Canadian Firearms Enforcement Officers in British Columbia assists in the prohibition of the right to obtain or possess firearms of all those convicted of producing marijuana. It is a small step in trying to combat this seriously ignored and sometimes muffled problem here in British Columbia.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
References available on request. Send self-addressed, stamped envelope to:
Drug Watch World News,  P.O. Box 318,  Carlinville, Illinois  62626 USA

§         A new research study found that the most cases of marijuana dependence occurred when users were 15-25 years old.  (Neuropsychopharmacology 2002, Vol. 26, No.4)

§         According to a study by the Swiss Lausanne based Institute of Alcohol and Drug Prevention, the earlier one starts using cannabis, the higher the risk that he/she will start using other drugs as well.  The researchers found that the age at which the first joint was smoked dropped by nine months between 1993 and 1998 — from 16.5 years to 15.8 years.  Gerhard Gmel, director of the research project, believes that increased availability is the main reason why youngsters have started using cannabis at earlier ages.  (www.sfa-ispa.ch: ECAD Newsletter, April 2002)

§         THC, the main psychoactive component of marijuana, exacerbates encephalitic brain infection (GAE), a progressive disease of the nervous system.  Marijuana and THC have been reported to exert deleterious effects on the immune system, making it more susceptible to infection with viruses and bacteria.  Those with already compromised immune systems, such as AIDS patients, could be at greater risk of infection with GAE.  (Marciano-Cabral et al, J.Eukaryot, Microbiol., 2001)

§         Marijuana won’t stop multiple sclerosis pain.  Dr. Joep Killestein, VU Medical Center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and a team of scientists report that, “Compared to placebo, neither THC nor plant-extract treatment reduced spasticity.”  A previous study in mice indicated that marijuana might help to relieve the painful spasms; however, the amount of the drug used in mice would not be tolerated in humans.  (Neurology, 2002;58:1404-1407)

§         A September 2000 study of middle school students in Washington State found that even low levels of alcohol and drug use were linked to lower test scores.  Students whose peers had near-zero involvement with drinking and drugs scored on average 18 points higher on the state reading test, and 45 points higher in math than students whose peers had a moderate level of use. In a 2001 survey, 80 percent of adults and 75 percent of teens agreed with the statement, “I believe marijuana use is harmful.”  (Heidi Hottinger, The Sun; (Washington State, USA; 4/14/02)

§         An Australian study found that smoking marijuana has serious consequences for the mental health of teen users.  The Australian researchers concluded, “Cannabis use is very prevalent [in Australia].  The association with depression, conduct problems, excessive drinking, and use of other drugs shows a malignant pattern of co-morbidity that may lead to negative outcomes.”  (Rey, et al; British Journal of Psychiatry, April 2002)

§         There has been a dramatic turnaround in public opinion in Western Australia on the softening of cannabis laws.  Opposition leader, Colin Barnett, said the attitude of the public has hardened because there has been more debate, and people understand that the drug is not harmless, that there is a link between cannabis and cancer, and that there is evidence that cannabis can make mental illness worse.  Inverell, a town of 10,000 people in New South Wales, is declaring itself Australia’s first illicit drug-free town.  The town will have an official zero-tolerance of illicit drug use.  This will mark the beginning of a strategy called “Know Drugs” that will focus on education and vigilance to combat illicit drug use.  (ECAD Newsletter, April 2002)

§         A new study from the University of Pennsylvania Treatment Center indicates that rather than an effort to self-medicate depression marijuana use often leads to depression.  The study found that those who used cannabis were four times more likely than those who didn’t use it to have depressive symptoms, suicidal thoughts, and an inability to experience pleasure.  (Bovasso, Ph.D., Am J. Psychiatry 158:12, December 2001)

§         Physicians treating patients with nasal infections should consider opioid-based prescription drugs as a cause, and they should perform a complete urine drug screen as part of the patient evaluation.  The snorting of crushed opioid-based prescription drugs such as oxycodone can cause damage to the nose similar to that found in cocaine abuse, and it may cause local immunosuppression that supports the growth of fungal organisms.  (Yewell et al; Ann Oto Rhinol Laryngol 111:2002)

§         In addition to the well-known health hazards already associated with Ecstasy, researchers have reported a link to birth defects.  A British study has shown that 15.4 percent of the mothers who used Ecstasy during pregnancy had children born with congenital abnormalities.  U.S. researchers had previously determined that Ecstasy caused brain damage by injuring nerve endings in the brain.  (Patricia McElhatton, The National Teratology Information Service, 0191-232-1525, Partnership For Drug-Free America Bulletin, November 1999)

§         Recent studies with improved methods have found specific impairments of attention, memory, and the ability to make decisions in regular marijuana users and in children exposed to cannabis in utero.  “Regular” use is defined as “at least twice a month.”  The cognitive impairments developed as a result of prolonged cannabis use, and they worsened with increasing years of use.  “For habitual users, the kinds of impairments observed in this study have the potential to impact academic achievements, occupational proficiency, interpersonal relationships, and daily functioning.”  (Solowij et al; JAMA,  Vol 287, No.9, March 6, 2002

§         Cannabis use appears to have increased dramatically over the past two decades.  British Crime Survey (BCS) data shows that in England and Wales, lifetime use between 1981 and 2000 among those ages 20 to 24 years rose from 12 percent to 52 percent.  (ECAD Newsletter, April 2002)

§         It is estimated that opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan could cover an area between 45,000 ha and 65,000 ha in 2002.  The production of opium harvested between March and August 2002 in Afghanistan could reach between 1.900 and 2,700 metric tons of opium.  (United Nations International Drug Control Program Survey, February 2002.  ECAD Newsletter, April 2002)

§         The British newspaper Sunday Mirror reported that Britain and the United States have launched an operation to destroy the Afghan poppy fields that supply 90 percent of the heroin in Britain.  (ECAD Newsletter, April 2002)

§         American and Canadian law enforcement officials have said that the illegal production of stimulants like methamphetamine reflects lax regulations in Canada for the chemical ingredients.  As a result, Canada has become the leading supply route for the raw ingredients, typically in the form of decongestants, to the United States.  (New York Times, March 5, 2002)

§         The U.S. Navy’s minimum requirement calls for random urinalysis drug testing of 10 percent to 20 percent of personnel within a command each month.  Drug use within the military has fallen steadily since random drug testing began two decades ago, but the trend has been countered by a sharp jump in the use of the club drug Ecstasy, which leaves the system in 48 hours, making detection more difficult.  (William Cole, Honolulua (Hawaii) Advertiser Military Writer, wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com, May 11, 2002)

§         Propranolol, a medication used to treat high blood pressure, may be an effective add-on therapy for cocaine-dependent patients who suffer severe withdrawal symptoms when they stop using the drug.  Dr. Kyle Kampman of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia conducted the study.  (Kampman, K.M., et al., Drug and Alcohol Dependence 63(1):69-78, 2001)

§         Of the nearly 182,000 teens and children who entered treatment in 1996, nearly half (48.2 percent) were admitted for abuse or addiction to marijuana alone; 11.9 percent for alcohol alone, 2.9 percent for smoked cocaine, 2.4 percent for methamphetamines, and 2.3 percent for heroin.  More than half the teens in treatment for marijuana were between the ages of 15 and 17.  The potential of marijuana as a dangerous drug for our children in and of itself … is a matter of the most serious concern.  (Joseph A. Califano, CASA White Paper, July 1999 – www.casacolumbia.org; The Chemical People of Erie County, PA, Summer 2002)

§         The new Italian government, in power since May 2001, has made it clear that it is in favor of restrictive drug policies and against any liberalization of drug laws.  (Alberto Carosa, Journalist, International Herald Tribune Italy Daily; EURAD, April 2002)

§         According to the Monitoring the Future survey by the University of Michigan, the increase in the use of marijuana has been especially pronounced.  Between 1992 and 2001, past month use of marijuana increased from 12 percent to 22 percent among high school seniors.  (University of Michigan, http://monitoringthefuture.org)

§         The economic cost of alcohol and drug abuse in the United States in 1992 is estimated to be $246,000,000,000, 000 ($246 billion).  In 1998, only 19 percent of those abusing illicit drugs did NOT use marijuana.  Those with a higher consumption of marijuana support the legalization of marijuana but are less likely to support the legalization of cocaine and heroin.  Users of crack, cocaine, heroin, speedball, and/or methamphetamines are likely to support the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.  Surveys and research can be biased, depending on which drugs the respondents use, if any.  (Trevino & Richard, AM.J.Drug Alcohol Abuse, 28(1), 91-108; 2002)

§         Keith Stroup, the director of NORML, a pro marijuana legalization organization, is quoted as saying that, according to a Zogby poll, 61 percent of Americans oppose arresting and jailing marijuana smokers.  (Washington, DC, Post, 5/4/02)  [Ed. Note. In light of the Trevino & Richard research establishing that those who use drugs are likely to support legalization, the question is begged: Exactly what was the percentage of drug-using respondents?]

§         Recent research found that knowing there will be a punishment is, in itself, a deterrent to crime related to the abuse of alcohol.  There was also strong evidence that random blood-alcohol tests deter offenders.  (Professor J.P. Shepherd, Violence Research Group, University of Wales, UK; The Lancet, November 17, 2001)  [Ed. Note. Obviously, imposing meaningful sanctions against the use of illicit drugs is a deterrent to use, and drug testing is an important prevention tool.]

INTERVIEW OF DR. GABRIEL NAHAS WITH "Le Figaro," Paris
(October 2001)

Question:  You have been describing in the columns of Figaro for years the damaging effects of marihuana on vital human functions. Your reports have been criticized, and your message does not seem to have been heard.

DR. N: That’s true. But it is only lately that the irrefutable proof of the cellular toxicity of marihuana smoke has been established. Known by the scientists, this proof has not yet been presented to the public by the media.

Question:  What is your new finding?

DR. N: This new finding is the mechanism by which marihuana and THC, its active ingredient, damage the formation of DNA. DNA is the substance in the body that carries the genetic code and programs all cell functions. Our latest observations relate the damaging effect of marihuana on DNA formation on cells of vital organs to the induction by THC of cellular apoptosis.

Question:  What is apoptosis?

DR. N: Apoptosis is the key mechanism programmed by the genetic code, which regulates the life of a cell as well as its subsequent death. Apoptosis has been described as the programmed cell death, or suicide, of all mammalian cells. Apoptosis is related to the destruction of DNA formation by the DNA itself. It now accounts for our finding reported 25 years ago of the irreversible damaging effects of marihuana and THC on cells of the immunity system (lymphocytes). In brief, the THC molecule carries a “death” signal that induces apoptosis of the cell.

Question:  How can marihuana, a “soft drug,” do such terrible a thing?

DR. N: Marihuana carries billions of tiny substances (molecules) that act as “death” signals to cells. These THC “death” signals remain in the body, mostly in fat, for weeks before being eliminated. The storage of marihuana (THC) in fat was reported in 1972 by Nobel Prize winner J. Axelrod. After a single dose of marihuana (THC) 50 percent of the absorbed THC molecules will be stored in fat for five days, and it will take 30 days for complete elimination of THC from the body. Smoking marihuana every two days will result in the fat storage of THC molecules in amounts 10 times greater than the initial dose after 10 days, and 30 times greater after 30 days. Fat, which represents 40 percent of body weight, is a huge storage bin for THC molecules. From fat, THC will be slowly released in amounts sufficient to damage the DNA of cells of the immunity system, sperm cells, and of the developing fetus .

Question:  Don’t tobacco and alcohol also produce apoptosis?

DR. N:  Alcohol does not. Neither does nicotine.

Question:  And what about the brain?

DR. N:  THC molecules target and attach persistently to the fatty membranes of brain cells. The membrane is the outer lining that protects the cell against the death signals of the THC molecules. In fact, the THC molecule is in itself a death signal to the cell as are other xenobiotics (substances foreign to our body). The cell membrane may be considered as a filter that protects the interior of the cell and DNA from external “death” signals carried by the THC molecules. The cell membrane also transmits to the inner part of the cell and to DNA “life” molecular signals such as oxygen in a regulated amount.

Question:  This sounds awfully complicated.

DR. N:  It is. The disruption of membrane molecular signaling by THC and other drugs of abuse is a mystery of life. Its description is simple, but the actual mechanism by which THC disrupts the transmission in the membrane is very complex.

Question:  And what can be done to avoid this breakdown in communication in the brain caused by THC?

DR. N:  Many remedies and therapies have been tried, but none work except abstaining from taking the drugs. This is why the United Nations convention of 1960 bans use, possession, and trafficking of marihuana under penalty of law. This law was overlooked by the State of California, which has de facto legalized marihuana.

Question:  Didn’t the United States Supreme Court reverse this decision?

DR. N:  The Supreme Court only ruled on the legal aspects of the California State Court, which approved marihuana for medicine. The Court rejected the Federal Government’s recommendation of using an injunction instead of criminal prosecution to enforce the U.S. Federal interdiction law against marihuana. But it did not rule on the medical evidence establishing that marihuana carried a death signal to human germ cells, endangering future generations before they’re conceived, and in the course of their fetal development. It is not a matter for constitutional law to debate, but a matter of public health, which is administered by the Surgeon General of the United States, who enforces the measures adopted by Congress to protect the health of the nation, and especially that of its youth.

Dr. Gabriel G. Nahas, M.D., Ph.D., an internationally known pharmacologist and educator, is associated with Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Department of Anesthesiology (Professor Emeritus).  He is Scientific Advisor to Drug Watch International.

MARIJUANA UP IN SMOKE!
by Dr. Albu van Eeden, CEO of Doctors For Life International

To receive good news right at the beginning of the year was indeed encouraging.

Doctors For Life International (DFL) presented the Constitutional Court of South Africa with evidence of the effects of cannabis in the case of Garreth Prince vs. President of the Law Society of Cape of Good Hope last year.

Garreth Prince, a Rastafarian who holds two previous convictions for the possession of the illegal substance cannabis, applied for admission as an attorney under the auspices of the Law Society of the Cape, South Africa. He also expressed his intention to continue using cannabis should his admission be granted.

The legal question placed before our Constitutional Court was whether Mr. Prince could practice legally as an attorney in South Africa and continue to use cannabis (which forms part of his Rastafarian Religion).

The State requested DFL to submit medical evidence on the ill effects of cannabis. In a final decision on the 25 of January 2002, the court dismissed the appeal of Mr. Prince. The court stated that, based on the medical evidence submitted, the effect of cannabis proved it, amongst other things, to be a hallucinogen. The court further stated that the use of cannabis is harmful due to its psychoactive component tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), its cumulative properties, and its dose-related effects. The court also acknowledged the fact that excessive use of the substance results in hypermanic or other psychotic states.

DFL would especially like to express our sincere thanks to all the international experts for their contributions to this victory. They sent affidavits and medical evidence for the South African Court, many at their own expense and at short notice. Amongst them, with a brilliant script to explain the dangers of marijuana, was the then-President of Drug Watch International, Wayne Roques.  Sandra Bennett, Vice President of Drug Watch International and Director of the Northwest Center For Health & Safety, was the key person linking DFL with most of the experts in the United States, without which we believe this victory would not have been possible. The other affidavits that were used were from: Dr Daniel Amen (The Amen Clinic for behavioural changes), Sue Rusche (National Families in Action (NFIA), Prof. Bertha Madras (University of Columbia), Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (Family Research Council), Dr Eric Voth (The International Drug Strategy Institute) , Dr. Robert L. DuPont, and lastly, Dr. van Eeden (DFL's CEO).

DFL is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation of approximately 750 medical doctors, specialists, dentists, veterinary surgeons, and professors of medicine.  Members are in private practice, in government institutions, and from various medical faculties across South Africa and abroad. 

During the 1990's DFL became a role player in shaping national policy on various medical issues, including illicit drugs.  DFL is committed to sound science and a basic Christian ethic.  For more information, please visit our Web site at www.dfl.org.za or send e-mail to: mail@dfl.org.za

Dr. van Eeden holds a B.Med. Sci. (1978) and a M.B.CH.B (1982) degree from the University of Pretoria, South Africa.  For the past 15 years, Dr. van Eeden has been committed to the counseling and the rehabilitation of drug addicts and people suffering with anorexia, bulimia, depression, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric conditions, in conjunction with a local mission.

He is the Founding Member and Chief Executive Officer of Doctors For Life.  He is the author of the book: "Drugs — Facts, Arguments and Practical Advice.”  Dr. van Eeden has also been asked by the Department of Justice to submit recommendations to assist the government in the implementation of the National Drug Master Plan.  He is honoured to be a member of Drug Watch International.  

POTENCY MATTERS
by William M. Bennett, M.D., Co-Chairman, International Drug Strategy Institute
Sandra S. Bennett, Director, Northwest Center for Health & Safety, V.P. Drug Watch International

As a nephrologist and clinical pharmacologist, drug nephrotoxicity (the impact of drugs on the kidneys) and the management of transplant patients are my areas of expertise.  It is my responsibility to find the exact dose of the best drug to treat each individual patient.  All patients react to drugs differently.  Thus, it is sometimes necessary to try several different drugs before obtaining optimum benefit.  New and wonderful drugs are being discovered every day that meet FDA demands for safety and efficacy, but they can still be toxic in some people. Occasionally, a drug that has passed all the safety and efficacy tests will have unanticipated negative side effects and be pulled from the market.  The company that markets such a drug is often sued by those who were injured. 

It is from this perspective that both patients and medical professionals must look at the use of crude marijuana (cannabis) to treat patients. 

Because cannabis is plant material, not a pure drug, it contains many different compounds, including a number of carcinogens and THC, a cannabinoid that is highly hallucinogenic, addictive, and often contaminated with fungi.  In its natural state, before hybridization and other genetic manipulation, all cannabis is nothing more than wild hemp with a THC content of anywhere from .05 to 1.5 percent.  However, since the hallucinogenic heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, when marijuana became a mainstay of those who desired to alter their consciousness, potency has increased. 

By 1995, a report to the U.S. Department of Justice stated that, "Oregon sinsemilla averages over 15 percent THC compared to 4.13 percent elsewhere in the nation. As a result, Oregon sinsemilla is often mixed with marijuana from California and Hawaii to increase the latter's quality and potency."

By 1996, the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project reported that confiscated street potency was 5.01 percent THC while sinsemilla was 10.48 percent THC.  That same report said that the highest THC analyzed to that time was a 1993 sample from Copper Center, Alaska, which tested at 29.85 percent.   Samples in excess of 32 percent THC have been reported, and drug culture web sites refer to hybrids that contain as much as 40 percent THC.  Reports from the Netherlands say the average potency of street marijuana is now 10 percent THC.  According to Munir Ahmad, operator of a club that distributes “medical” marijuana in Edmonton, street pot in Canada "can have between 15 and 20 percent THC content or more," a potency that contributes to the enormous increase of trafficking in Canadian cannabis. 

Cannabis cigarettes provided by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for scientific research contain approximately 3.5 percent THC.  Cannabis cigarettes now being provided by the Canadian government for “medical” use are purported to be between 5 and 8 percent THC.  California "medical" marijuana dealers on the Internet claim they have a number of varieties in the 20 percent to 30 percent range.  California users of "medical pot" claim they want it to be 10 percent THC or better and would not use the "poor quality" pot provided by NIDA.

This brings up the relevance of potency.  If an individual takes two aspirin for a headache, would 20 be better?  If a prescription calls for one antibiotic pill every four hours, would 60 pills a day be better?   If the purported medical properties of cannabis are dose related, the question is, "How high does the user want to get?”  Even a small amount of high potency cannabis can be dangerous.  Today's marijuana is filling our emergency rooms with those who, after smoking a joint, have found themselves victims of paranoia, disorientation, rapid heartbeat, nausea, and vomiting.    

It is clear that efforts to medicalize crude cannabis are neither altruistic nor compassionate but reflect an effort to exploit the suffering of the sick to legitimize the use of an addictive and medically dangerous substance.

TURN FOR THE WORSE
by Peter Stoker, Director of the National Drug Prevention Alliance
May 2002

On 6th June, 2001, at the General election, British drug policy took a turn for the worse. Much worse. Up to that point successive governments had held steady. They watched the struggle between well-resourced legalisers and their severely under-resourced opponents, and declared it a tie. But 2001 changed all that under a new Home Secretary, David Blunkett.

Blunkett wasted no time.  Drug Tsar Keith Hellawell was the first to feel the heat; a heat that disintegrated his post from beneath his feet and reassigned him to an uncharted backwater labeled “international affairs.” Blunkett added the mantle of Drugs Tsar to his own, and further announced that all drug strategy would henceforth come under his office. Coincidentally, the newly reconstituted Home Affairs Select Committee decided that its first and most urgent subject for appraisal was Britain's drug policy, and first to comment was none other than a Mr. D. Blunkett. He announced his intention to declassify cannabis, from Class A to Class B, removing most of the criminal sanctions.

The committee first took written evidence, and then they went on to invite witnesses, the majority of whom favoured the liberalisation of drug policy. Prevention organisations were mostly conspicuous by their absence. The National Drug Prevention Alliance did get to the stand but only after a struggle. The Alliance was also successful in pressing for a witness from Sweden to describe the Swedish policy approach. Resistance to the presence of witnesses from Holland and Switzerland was not evident.

David Blunkett was not the only person active in this sphere. In a south London borough having a high incidence of drugs, Commander Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police decided to make his own contribution. In what was doubtless sheer coincidence, on the eve of the annual, national pro-cannabis march, which happened to be in this same borough, he announced that police would no longer arrest people in possession of cannabis, just warn and confiscate. This was, in all but name, decriminalisation.

The list of libertarian names runs long, but it must include the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Erroneously awarded the title of “scientists” by the media, this committee is largely comprised of those who provide drugs services, and it has long been known for its preference for an acquiescent, harm reduction approach. Visit www.melaniephillips.com — in particular her article of 4.22.02 — for the full low-down on how the Council fits into the British libertarian extremists. For Mr. Blunkett to have claimed that integrity would stem from referring his proposals to this outfit was, and remains, a hollow sham. The Council endorsed him, of course, and joined others in shouting for more. Shooting galleries. Government guidelines for doing drugs in rave clubs. (They actually did that one!) Legalise ecstasy. Legalise dope. Former Minister Mo Mowlam emerged as Gung-Ho Mo; legalize the whole damn set was her prescription.

Wake up, Mr. Blunkett, and smell the caffeine.

PETER STOKER, C.Eng., M.I.C.E.(Retd.) , Director of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, his 15 years experience in the field includes street agencies as counsellor/advocate, specialist education advisor in schools, and prevention trainings in several European countries. A frequent conference speaker, authoring many papers and articles, he is a regular contributor to broadcast and print media.
 

THE VOICES OF VICTIMS
by Judy Kreamer, President, Educating Voices
Delegate, Drug Watch International

Do you hear the wailing? Do you hear the anguish? Do you hear the pain? Do you hear the fear? Do you hear the hopelessness? These are the sounds of the drug addicted — victims of safe drug use propaganda. IS ANYONE LISTENING?

Why don't we hear the voices of the thousands addicted to illegal drugs? Who has silenced them? Who would want us NOT to hear them and NOT to learn how to help them? One of those voices could belong to your child, your parent, a sibling, a close friend.

There is the sobbing of a young heroin addict, his head buried in his grandmother's shoulder; he promises her again that he'll stop. There is the woman with a 20-year crack habit, who has lost custody of her daughter, and is trying for yet another time to get clean. There is the young man who started with alcohol and marijuana in middle school and was a full-blown heroin addict by high school. There is the new mother who used heroin through the first five months of her pregnancy, and her miracle baby was born clean. There is the struggling college student who started using marijuana very early and then moved on to meth, Ecstasy, and cocaine, and who is now left with little short-term memory. There is the 40-year-old woman who started with marijuana as a teenager and ended her addiction with prescription drugs.

Why don't we hear the voices of these victims?

Instead we hear the voices of those promoting so-called “Harm Reduction” drug policies; those who offer the superficially plausible reasoning that illegal drugs can be safe, while in actuality the reasoning is fallacious and devastating. Safety 1st, a project of the Drug Policy Alliance [formerly the Soros funded Lindesmith Center/Drug Policy Foundation], fosters victims through experimentation by falsely insisting that, "Teens see for themselves that experimentation with drugs, like marijuana, does not lead to addiction. They know that young people who try drugs rarely progress to regular or problem use."

The victims' voices have been quelled by NORML with their ad campaign, "It's NORML to smoke pot," along with New York Mayor Bloomberg's quote, "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it." Legalization advocates vigorously promote marijuana by making unsubstantiated claims such as: "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health."

The Drug Policy Alliance preys upon the vulnerable with the most heinous manipulation of drug policy by promoting “Harm Reduction,” the claim that drugs can be used safely and any adverse effects can be minimized.

Today, in Drug Court, I heard the victims' wailing, anguish, pain, fear, and hopelessness, and I cried. I want the world to hear their voices. IS ANYONE LISTENING? 

Ed. Note.  Those who would legalize the personal use of marijuana say that the right to use drugs is a "victimless crime" and should therefore be a "personal choice."  WRONG!  The very loud and wealthy voices of the drug legalizers have almost drowned out the weak voices of the victims —  those whose lives are ruined by their own drug use, families that are torn apart by the drug use of a loved one, parents who have lost children to drugs, those killed and maimed by drugged drivers, and children who suffer and sometimes die at the hands of drug-addicted parents.  It's time that the victims' voices be heard.  We hope that other organizations will join in the effort to make "The Voices of Victims" heard round the world. 

WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT "MEDICAL" MARIJUANA?
by Sandra Bennett, Past President, Drug Watch International

What do you say to the media when they ask for your input on "medical" marijuana?

Over the past two years I have been asked by numerous radio talk show hosts, most of whom had already interviewed medical pot “experts” on their programs, to respond for "the other side."

This happened again this evening when the producer of a talk show in Maryland called and said that more than 50 state legislators had signed on to a bill that would allow terminally ill patients access to "medical" marijuana, and asked me if I would respond.  Based on the producer's questions, which sounded rational, I agreed to do it.  Here is a sample of the questions and some of my responses.

Question:  Don't you think doctors ought to be able to prescribe anything they want for their patients?

Response:  Marijuana is not prescribeable.  It is an illicit drug that has failed to meet any of the FDA criteria for therapeutic drugs.  Further, when it comes to pharmaceutical drugs that are controlled substances, doctors may not prescribe them in any manner they please, and pill mill doctors who have been caught handing out unwarranted prescriptions for these substances are often arrested and serve jail time - as has happened in the past with Valium and more recently with OxyContin.

Question:  But they're asking for marijuana for terminally ill patients.  Don't you think these patients deserve to be relieved from their suffering? 

Response:  First, though the media continues to claim that the marijuana would only be used by terminally ill patients, the fact is that all of the initiatives passed to date have been much more broad based than that, and, in fact, an Oregon physician who had written more than 60 percent of all the marijuana recommendations in that state had not examined the patients and had not seen their medical records.  He had even given a recommendation to a 14-year-old child for a minor ailment. Further, few of the individuals who received the "recommendations" had "terminal" medical conditions.

Question:  But if someone is terminal?

Response:  Even the IOM report acknowledged that there are excellent pharmaceutical medications already available to treat every malady mentioned by those who seek to smoke marijuana.

Question:  So are you saying that marijuana has no medical properties?

Response:  Having medical properties is not the same thing as being safe and effective for medical use.  Marijuana has 483 compounds, 66 of which are cannabinoids.  Several of the cannabinoids have already been developed into FDA approved medications.  But these medications are not marijuana.   They are pharmaceutical drugs, which can be carefully titrated to the patient's needs.

Here is an illustration that may make this easier to understand.  Compare marijuana to a chocolate fruitcake. The cake, like marijuana, contains many ingredients, i.e.,  eggs, flour, sugar, salt, fruit, nuts, leavening, and cocoa.  The cocoa is to the cake what THC is to marijuana.  However, to a diabetic, or someone allergic to nuts or flour or eggs, there are likely to be some very bad reactions to eating the cake.  Using the word "cocoa" interchangeably with the word "cake" is incorrect, misleading, and confusing.  However, that is what is being done with THC and marijuana. THC is no more marijuana than cocoa is a chocolate cake.

Question:  What do you think about doctors who prescribe or recommend marijuana to their patients?

Response:  There are good doctors and bad doctors just like there are good and bad lawyers, policemen, accountants, and other professionals.  I think that a doctor who recommends marijuana to a patient is either a bad doctor or a doctor who is not familiar with the scientific medical literature on marijuana.  By the way, many individuals who are terminally ill are on supplemental oxygen.  It would be extremely dangerous, not only for the patient, but also for anyone else in the vicinity for the patient to smoke while using supplemental oxygen.  Further, for most individuals in this stage of illness trying to smoke anything could pose an extreme fire hazard, again, endangering the lives of others.

A question that was not asked by this radio talk show host but usually makes its way into the agenda is one that brings in the question of tobacco vs. marijuana, i.e., "Tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of individuals every year but nobody's ever died of smoking pot.  But pot is illegal.  Doesn't this seem a bit hypocritical?"

Answer:  Marijuana is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes and emergency psychiatric episodes.  Smoking a few cigarettes, or even a package of cigarettes, has never necessitated emergency room medical or psychiatric attention.  Long-term tobacco use leads to a deterioration of the lungs, heart, circulation, etc.  There are no recorded deaths from smoking tobacco short term.  It is known that marijuana undermines the immune system so it is likely that in another 20 years, if use continues to escalate, the death toll from side effects of long-term marijuana use will equal those of longer-term tobacco use.  Additionally, because marijuana is hallucinogenic, smokers often indulge in risky or irresponsible behavior that results in tragic or lethal consequences.

FROM THE DESK OF CHARLES PERKINS
President, Drug Watch International  

The government of Canada still can’t get it straight! In our Parliamentary system, any elected member of Parliament can submit a Private Member’s Bill, i.e., a legislative bill that doesn’t necessarily have the support of his party.  Recently, a Private Member’s Bill to have the criminality removed from marijuana was presented and went down to defeat. If the Senate would pay attention to this defeat, they would stop trying to change our drug laws. If Canada’s Health Minister would read Health Canada’s report, THC in the Food Supply Risk Assessment, maybe she would wake up to the reality of the enormous mistake the Canadian government has made in providing marijuana for alleged medical purposes, giving exemptions from prosecution for those pretending to use marijuana for alleged medical purposes and issuing licenses for people to grow it for alleged medical use.

Here is an illustration of how out of control the marijuana situation is in Canada.  In a recent police blitz of 208 locations across Canada, 60,000 plants worth about $60 million (Canadian) were seized along with hundreds of kilos of dried marijuana, smaller amounts of other drugs, body armour, and weapons. Staff-Sgt Gary Miner of York Regional Police stated that so much marijuana is being grown in Canada that it’s the third largest agricultural product in the country. “I believe the majority of it is produced for export,” he said. “You can’t have all Canadians consuming this much marijuana.”

It was recently documented that public opinion polls are being manipulated. MPP (Marijuana Policy Project) announced that they had made an agreement with pollsters Zogby International to supply them with their subscriber list and in return Zogby would insert “marijuana related” questions into some of their polls. A written request to Zogby International asking them to explain the steps they take to make sure their poll results cannot be manipulated remains unanswered.

The Drug Watch World News is currently printed only in English and distributed around the world.  Recently, an ad hoc committee has been established to investigate the possibility of having our newsletter translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and possibly Russian and produced in those languages for distribution.  The committee will be chaired by John Lamp, former U.S. Attorney in Washington State. 

Much new, well-documented information has been added to the Drug Watch International Web site at www.drugwatch.org, and a new search engine has been added to assist with the research of a particular topic or document.  I encourage everyone to pay us a visit.

Return to Drug Watch International Homepage

This page was last updated on February 26, 2003
Copyright © 2001-2003 Drug Watch International. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
International NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
Please address all comments and questions to:  
Drug Watch International, P.O. Box 45218, Omaha, NE  68145-0218, USA